War on Drugs – A legal and economic analysis
Place in some charts, pictures, statistics from the links file to support facts. Start introduction by defining drugs etc. and then move on to the war on drugs and its dynamics. Furthermore, mention the stance and thesis and finally, present points in favor of legalization and objections (along with rebuttals) to it. Then, conclusion and bingo.
In all of human history, no society has ever
been drug free, nor will any be so in the future.
Drugs are not going to disappear; the challenge is
to mitigate the harm they cause.
Club in New York City.
I said I would talk about the "War on Drugs."
That was a phrase first popularized?as I recollect?
by President Reagan, and then made the cornerstone
of George Bush's first address to the nation
1998 – UN
But the desire to alter
one's state of consciousness, and to use psychoactive
drugs to do so, is nearly universal-and mostly not
opium have been grown throughout much of the
world for millennia. T
In all of human history, no society has ever existed that was completely free from harmful and threatening drugs, and it seems difficult to see a drug-free world in the future. Drugs are not a new invention but in reality drugs like opium are being produced in the world since milleniums. More drugs are produced every year because of their popular demand and ability to make a person change his state of consciousness.Because of their addictive characteristics, consumption of drugs like cocaine and heroin today is roughly the same as it was decades ago, meanwhile their overall production has increased, despite prohibitive changes in law and policy throughout the world regarding selling and buying of drugs. The phrase “War on Drugs” was used by president Bush in his first address to the nation, but the phrase gained its popularity in US long ago, during Reagan’s presidency in 1980s. The formal prohibition on drugs took place in 1993.
The futility of the war on drugs has long been
obvious, but the evidence of failure grows stark-
er each year. Attacking the supply side has yield-
ed nothing: Drugs are cheaper, purer, and more
plentiful than ever. Despite crop-eradication pro-
grams, there is substantially more opium poppy
and coca cultivated today than there was two
decades ago. Attempting to stamp out the supply
of drugs is like pushing on a balloon-cut off
production in one country and another quickly
fills the void.
In favor of legalization
Present drug policy has increased crimes, decreased respect for legitimate law, and created great social upheaval. Whenever any two persons engage in commercial activity – whether it is barter, or the purchase or sale of consumer goods or intermediate products - both must gain in the ex-ante sense. That is, neither party would agree to take part in the endeavor did he not expect to be made better off as a result of it. When one views a trade ex-ante, he does so from a time perspective before it actually takes place; he anticipates that he will benefit from it. If this insight applies to ordinary trades, it holds no less in the case under consideration. The market, the concatenation of all voluntary trades, still enhances the welfare of all participants. Kind of law: positive economics. Here, we focus on the normative libertarian legal code - In this John Locke based perspective,” man is the owner of his own body, since he, in effect, “homesteaded” it. Given that he legitimately owns these properties, he can do with them whatever he wishes, provided that he respects the equal human and property rights of all other people. As legalization takes the vast profits out of the drug business, the incentives toward criminality will tend to disappear pari passu. And this is no accident, since the one stems from the other one. In addition, with fewer criminals, there will be less overcrowding of prisons;...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document